Case: June Medical Services, LLC v. Landry

This case is about Louisiana's three abortion "trigger" laws which had been enacted in 2006 and in 2022 in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Three days after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Center for Reproductive Rights sued, on behalf of June Medical Services (d.b.a. Hope Medical Group for Women), the state in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana on June 27, 2022, claiming Louisiana's trigger laws were unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs sought (1) injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or enforcing the trigger bans, and (2) attorney fees and costs. This case was assigned to Judge Robin M. Giarrusso and then transferred to Judge Donald Johnson of the Louisiana District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish.

The same day the petition was filed, the Court granted a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the Louisiana law and set a show cause hearing for July 8, 2022. In response, on July 1, 2022, the Defendants appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court to dissolve the temporary restraining orders and stay a preliminary injunction until the appellate court considers whether Plaintiffs had even brought a sufficient constitutional challenge to the three Louisiana statutes in the first place. On July 6, 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the stay, declining to exercise its plenary supervisory jurisdiction at this preliminary stage of proceedings.

However, on July 8, 2022, the trial court decided that the suit had been filed in the wrong place and transferred the case to Judge Donald Johnson of the Louisiana District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish. The preliminary injunction hearing was also moved to July 18, 2022.

On July 21, 2022, Judge Johnson granted a preliminary injunction, stating that clinics can continue providing abortion procedures while the suit continues.

However, on July 29, 2022, the First Circuit of Louisiana’s Court of Appeals mandated, per Defendants' motion to do so, that the preliminary injunction be placed in suspension pending Defendants'  appeal of the preliminary injunction. Because of this decision the abortion bans went into effect while the case was set to continue.

On August 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an emergency application for writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court. On August 12, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' application, allowing the trigger law to remain in effect and the appeal to continue in the Court of Appeals.

On September 1, 2022, the trial court denied defendants' reconventional demand and granted plaintiffs' exceptions directed to the same demand. Then, on September 29, 2022, the trial court established a scheduling order for discovery. A week later, on October 5, 2022, the First Circuit of the Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to allow discovery or conduct a trial while the appeal is pending. And, on January 3, 2023, the First Circuit vacated the trial court's September 1st order. In its opinion, the court held that the trial court's jurisdiction over any matter under appeal was divested and found that matters under appeal in the case encompassed issues relating to the grant of the preliminary injunction and the claims set forth in the reconventional demand. 

On August 13, 2023, the First Circuit of the Court of Appeals held that the trial court had erred in granting a preliminary injunction. In its reasoning, the court explained that the Louisiana Supreme Court had established three conditions that must be met before a court could use its equity powers to restrain the enforcement of criminal statutes. One of these three conditions is establishing the statute's unconstitutionality. The court noted that a court could not declare a statute unconstitutional in a preliminary injunction hearing and that no evidence showed the parties agreed to try the merits of the constitutionality question at the  hearing; accordingly, the condition was not met and injunctive relief was improper.

The First Circuit remanded the case and assessed costs of the appeal against plaintiffs. On September 19, it denied a request for a rehearing. As of November 2024, the case is ongoing.